. . . .As some would say, is this what videographers wanted the 5D Mark III to be? . . .

"Videographers" should realize that stills should always get priority with the dslr . . . So, they have to get in line behind what photographers "wanted the 5D Mark III to be."

Perhaps that isn't true anymore. DSLRs were made for exclusively still shooting, but that's not the case anymore. The 5D II changed that. Now people have expectations and hopes about DSLR video improvements. It's just the way things are now.

"Videographers" should realize that stills should always get priority with the dslr . . . So, they have to get in line behind what photographers "wanted the 5D Mark III to be."

It was just a description dude, people are allowed to want whatever the hell they want. I'm a videographer and I screamed at people for months up to the 5DIII release that it would only have slightly improved video and that they needed to keep the two separate. He's just saying that if you're a videographer that wanted a 5DIII this is probably the camera for you.

Perhaps that isn't true anymore. DSLRs were made for exclusively still shooting, but that's not the case anymore. The 5D II changed that. Now people have expectations and hopes about DSLR video improvements. It's just the way things are now.

*disclaimer: I don't shoot video on my DSLR (or at all really)*

I don't think that's the way it is now, Canon made the best of the 5DII situation and ran with it, but with the establishment of the Cinema EOS line it seems apparent that they are trying to keep the two separate. That's why the 5DIII only had very slight improvements in video features, to "direct the herd" towards the cinema DSLR.

I mean when you try to make a hybrid camera that does the best of both worlds, someone is going to end up compromising and paying for features that they don't use. Like you don't shoot video, so why should you have to pay for a bunch of video features on your still camera? You shouldn't.

Logged

5DIII/5DII/Bunch of L's and ZE's, currently rearranging.

gene_can_sing

I actually think this camera will be coming out sooner than later in "the distant future."

Why? Because for video people, the 5D3 was a pretty big letdown, mainly just because it still has the soft image. Many video people cancelled their orders and others like myself just are not going to order a 5D3.

Plus, the Sony FS-100 is kicking the S#*t out Canon and stealing serious sales, and Canon needs something to compete in the $4K to $6k range, and that's probably going to be the 4k EOS.

They need to come out with it soon. I can't wait any longer, especially now that the FS-100 can use all of Canon EOS lenses with the Metabones electronic adaptor.

I'm wondering if the C-300 is going to receive a serious price cut or some type of firmware upgrade. The Sony F3 now includes 4:4:4 to ext. recorder which is far superior to the codec of the C-300 (same price range). Canon needs to either up the game or drop the price on the seriously over priced C-300.

Perhaps that isn't true anymore. DSLRs were made for exclusively still shooting, but that's not the case anymore. The 5D II changed that. Now people have expectations and hopes about DSLR video improvements. It's just the way things are now.

*disclaimer: I don't shoot video on my DSLR (or at all really)*

I don't think that's the way it is now, Canon made the best of the 5DII situation and ran with it, but with the establishment of the Cinema EOS line it seems apparent that they are trying to keep the two separate. That's why the 5DIII only had very slight improvements in video features, to "direct the herd" towards the cinema DSLR.

I mean when you try to make a hybrid camera that does the best of both worlds, someone is going to end up compromising and paying for features that they don't use. Like you don't shoot video, so why should you have to pay for a bunch of video features on your still camera? You shouldn't.

Oh, I actually agree. I was only speaking to people's expectations. Personally, I don't have a problem with video advancement in my DSLR. But whether or not someone has a problem with it, or whether or not Canon can make a proper hybrid DSLR doesn't really matter. Videographers who chose to shoot with DSLRs now have a say in the matter, thanks to the 5DII. And they can complain about the lack of improvement on the 5DIII. Their expectations don't matter much to me but they are within their rights as customers to express them. At least, before EOS Cinema comes out.

On another note, I assume the EOS Cinema will be able to take still images too. I wonder what the capabilities of still shooting will be.

tjc320

I mean when you try to make a hybrid camera that does the best of both worlds, someone is going to end up compromising and paying for features that they don't use. Like you don't shoot video, so why should you have to pay for a bunch of video features on your still camera? You shouldn't.

I'm with you 100% which is why I hope that this Cinema DSLR has only video functionality with basic photographic abilities. Could it be mirrorless?

Orion

"Videographers" should realize that stills should always get priority with the dslr . . . So, they have to get in line behind what photographers "wanted the 5D Mark III to be."

It was just a description dude, people are allowed to want whatever the hell they want. I'm a videographer and I screamed at people for months up to the 5DIII release that it would only have slightly improved video and that they needed to keep the two separate. He's just saying that if you're a videographer that wanted a 5DIII this is probably the camera for you.

yeah, and I'm also "just sayin" haha . . . speakiing of those that are more dissapointed with the video aspects of this (mkIII) dslr. . . . and I happen to be right, no!?

Otherwise there are a lot of cameras out there for pro videographers, and if you are not a pro, but just want somewthing that can give you that op to ejoy making professioanl quality videos, once you purchase rigs and matt boxes etc, with the mkIII, then excellent too!!!

The main point is that Still pohotographers that care nothing for video (unlike myself), are forced to pay MORE for a stills camera simply because they add all these video features . . and that is something to think about too. For wedding photographers looking to get extra business, and amateur videogrpahers, etc, it is a bonus.

Imagine if all of the $3500 of the mkIII was for simply stills capable camera, and absolutely NO video!?!?!? They should've done one for stills ONLY and one for stills and video, and one for video . . . from the start. . . or howver the hell they want to go about it. . . . but we all know how marketing sucks in all the fish in the sea, especially the ISO wars, as an example.

Logged

gene_can_sing

I think the photo features will be dumbed down. Canon promised a full frame DSLR that's skewed towards video, so I think it will probably be a lower megapixel. As someone who shoots video and does some stills, mostly timelapses, that's fine with me. 12 megapixels is perfect for video because then the resolution is native 4K and requires no sensor downsampling which will result in super clean video. Plus, isn't 12 megpixels a 13" x 10" print at 300 dpi? For me, that plenty.

Probably also will dumbed down autofocus system (7D is fine with me as I don't need 61 points of AF), and maybe not as high ISO for stills.

Imagine if all of the $3500 of the mkIII was for simply stills capable camera, and absolutely NO video!?!?!? They should've done one for stills ONLY and one for stills and video, and one for video . . . from the start. . . or howver the hell they want to go about it. . . . but we all know how marketing sucks in all the fish in the sea, especially the ISO wars, as an example.

Orion, I dare say a vast vast majority of that $3500 is still photography related since the video features weren't improved at all (aside from some compression choices). Canon's video implementation has been paid for many times over with the 5DII and the 7D. And considering (from what I've heard) the 50D can shoot video with a firmware adjustment (maybe Magic Latern?) I don't think there is much extra inside to make it possible.

Odds are the $3500 comes from the tons of money Canon has put into the 61-point AF system and they haven't made a dime off of it yet.

Orion

Imagine if all of the $3500 of the mkIII was for simply stills capable camera, and absolutely NO video!?!?!? They should've done one for stills ONLY and one for stills and video, and one for video . . . from the start. . . or howver the hell they want to go about it. . . . but we all know how marketing sucks in all the fish in the sea, especially the ISO wars, as an example.

Orion, I dare say a vast vast majority of that $3500 is still photography related since the video features weren't improved at all (aside from some compression choices). Canon's video implementation has been paid for many times over with the 5DII and the 7D. And considering (from what I've heard) the 50D can shoot video with a firmware adjustment (maybe Magic Latern?) I don't think there is much extra inside to make it possible.

Odds are the $3500 comes from the tons of money Canon has put into the 61-point AF system and they haven't made a dime off of it yet.

Yeah, I would agree with that but it does not change the fact that the video option tech has made dslrs more expensive . . but by how much is not known. Even though I edit video like a "pro" and love shooting video, it just goes against the grain a bit when we get a new dslr and it's not mostly about photography, as in the old days with film . . . it would really be a studio camera of sorts.

With the new "C" line we have seen glimpses of, I would've loved for THAT to result in a plain ol stills camera, with the "C" camera left for both stills and video for that market where video is more important than photos.

I guess I'm trying to think of how I would run the business if I owned Canon. . . . it would make more sense to me to have a stills camera only (studio type AF/ISO/DR monster), and then a video and stills dslr focussed more on video with the ability to shoot/convert video frames to stills . . . . I know that what I am saying isn't indicative of the briughtest gem in the lot, but it's open for refinement Don't mind me. . ..

Imagine if all of the $3500 of the mkIII was for simply stills capable camera, and absolutely NO video!?!?!? They should've done one for stills ONLY and one for stills and video, and one for video . . . from the start. . . or howver the hell they want to go about it. . . . but we all know how marketing sucks in all the fish in the sea, especially the ISO wars, as an example.

Orion, I dare say a vast vast majority of that $3500 is still photography related since the video features weren't improved at all (aside from some compression choices). Canon's video implementation has been paid for many times over with the 5DII and the 7D. And considering (from what I've heard) the 50D can shoot video with a firmware adjustment (maybe Magic Latern?) I don't think there is much extra inside to make it possible.

Odds are the $3500 comes from the tons of money Canon has put into the 61-point AF system and they haven't made a dime off of it yet.

Yeah, I would agree with that but it does not change the fact that the video option tech has made dslrs more expensive . . but by how much is not known. Even though I edit video like a "pro" and love shooting video, it just goes against the grain a bit when we get a new dslr and it's not mostly about photography, as in the old days with film . . . it would really be a studio camera of sorts.

With the new "C" line we have seen glimpses of, I would've loved for THAT to result in a plain ol stills camera, with the "C" camera left for both stills and video for that market where video is more important than photos.

I guess I'm trying to think of how I would run the business if I owned Canon. . . . it would make more sense to me to have a stills camera only (studio type AF/ISO/DR monster), and then a video and stills dslr focussed more on video with the ability to shoot/convert video frames to stills . . . . I know that what I am saying isn't indicative of the briughtest gem in the lot, but it's open for refinement Don't mind me. . ..

Well, let's see: When the 5D came out it started at $3,299. I'm not sure if that includes a lens or not honestly, but I don't think it matters. The 5DII came out and sold body only for $2,699. So Canon managed to add video and higher res sensor but make the camera cheaper? Then when the 5DIII comes we are back up to $3,499.

I really don't think you can blame video for all that. I can agree that the 5DIII is priced higher than it should be, however.

If there photographer/economists out there that have a info on this that I'm missing I welcome it.